I am sorry to say, Mike Hearn was right.

[Holliday]

We should go to 8MB today.

You can. What are you waiting for? Go build a block bigger than 1MB. You don't need anyone's permission.

Starting another new thread about it isn't going to change anyone's mind. If the past two years hasn't convinced you of that, then I don't know what to say.

If your argument is so strong, and you believe bigger blocks are far superior, the market will obviously choose the chain with bigger blocks. Just do it.

Can't do it because Greg Maxwell needs to cripple the network so their will be more demand for his Lightning off chain approach.  The thing is, if Greg agrees to go to 8MB today, blocks won't be full again until Lightning is ready.  That way, they can have their off chain scaling approach AND no network congestion for the next 3 - 5 years. 

You don't need Greg Maxwell's permission. This is Bitcoin. The code is open source. There is even a version that allows for larger block sizes. It's called Bitcoin Unlimited. All you need to do is run that software with whatever perimeter you want for the block size, then mine a block bigger than 1MB. That's it.

I think you are afraid to put your money where your mouth is. If the market truly wants larger blocks, the person who starts mining them is in a position to earn a ton of block rewards for himself before the rest of the miners move over to that fork. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

Actions speak louder than words. If you truly believed what you keep repeating, nothing would stop you.

[Lauda]

ChangeTip failed, along with all other microtransaction applications because tx fee went from .0000 US cents to about 20 US cents. 

That's not why they failed. Their business model was horribly unsustainable. It's currently 15 cents for TX median size. You can easily go lower though.

Many, many other application that are not settlement application also failed as a result of Maxwell/core/blockstream intentionally corrupting the system to drive demand for their LN which doesn't even exist today. 

Repeating the lie infinite number of times won't make it true for non-sheep users. You still are unable to list anything that would come close to a list of 'many' (not to mentioned 'many many').

[Holliday]

Small blocks was intended as a temporary limit to control spam until an alternative was devised.

You have an alternative to the 1MB limit for preventing spam then? Cool. What is it?

[Coin-Keeper]

I want you more "senior type" members to know that I am really enjoying this discussion and others like it on this board.  I personally find that my BTC transactions proceed through the blockchain at very acceptable speeds.  I have been around for a few years now and I know lots of talk is just that without backup evidence.  I just continue to hope that posts added to this thread will actually teach me something useful.  [popcorn]

[DGulari]

We should go to 8MB today.

You can. What are you waiting for? Go build a block bigger than 1MB. You don't need anyone's permission.

Starting another new thread about it isn't going to change anyone's mind. If the past two years hasn't convinced you of that, then I don't know what to say.

If your argument is so strong, and you believe bigger blocks are far superior, the market will obviously choose the chain with bigger blocks. Just do it.

Can't do it because Greg Maxwell needs to cripple the network so their will be more demand for his Lightning off chain approach.  The thing is, if Greg agrees to go to 8MB today, blocks won't be full again until Lightning is ready.  That way, they can have their off chain scaling approach AND no network congestion for the next 3 - 5 years. 

You don't need Greg Maxwell's permission. This is Bitcoin. The code is open source. There is even a version that allows for larger block sizes. It's called Bitcoin Unlimited. All you need to do is run that software with whatever perimeter you want for the block size, then mine a block bigger than 1MB. That's it.

I think you are afraid to put your money where your mouth is. If the market truly wants larger blocks, the person who starts mining them is in a position to earn a ton of block rewards for himself before the rest of the miners move over to that fork. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

Actions speak louder than words. If you truly believed what you keep repeating, nothing would stop you.

That is a very clever gimmick.  Everyone understands quite clearly why this argument is just a convenient bit of nonsense to support the small block side.  

You fool nobody bringing this silly bit of schenanigans

[Lauda]

There is even a version that allows for larger block sizes. It's called Bitcoin Unlimited.

Segwit is also technically an implementation of larger block sizes. Thus it is up to the miners/market/users on whether they want to adopt those or not.

I think you are afraid to put your money where your mouth is. If the market truly wants larger blocks, the person who starts mining them is in a position to earn a ton of block rewards for himself before the rest of the miners move over to that fork. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

Actions speak louder than words. If you truly believed what you keep repeating, nothing would stop you.

Indeed. Just fork away now and the conflict is solved.

I just continue to hope that posts added to this thread will actually teach me something useful.  [popcorn]

Step 1) Don't listen to OP. Step 2) Eat more popcorn.

[franky1]

You're the one outside of reality. There's is at least 1 known Segwit block on testnet that has >8000 TX. According to your invalid knowledge, it was created by magic since the limit is 4500TX.
Magic 14.8 TPS: https://testnet.smartbit.com.au/block/0000000000000896420b918a83d05d028ad7d61aaab6d782f580f2d98984a392

thats an expectation with/near 100% segwit usage
thats an expectation with/near LEAN tx..

the reality is not everyone will do lean TX's
the reality is not everyone will do segwit TX's

so your overselling expectation instead of thinking of rational realistic

put it this way.. 2009-2016.. how many blocks actually achieved the expectation of 7tx/s

oh and here is another nugget. although bitcoin never even got to achieve 7tx/s (4500) in 7 years in any reasonable amount of blocks

the maths of compressed keys and lean tx was a 10tx MAX.. but like i said even 7tx/s(undersold) was a push to even dare try coming close to and never really seen as any real longterm actual utility.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Maximum_transaction_rate

so your 14tx/s example is not a realistic longterm actual utility. but an extreme theoretical based on 100% this 100% that.
however
the realistic is that segwits 4500(7tx/s) expectation is still pushing the boundary's of what we will actually get. but atleast its not overselling it like your trying.

in short. its far easier to say
"since 2009. we may actually see 4500 regularly after 2016 due to segwit, which we expected to get 7 years ago"

sidenote:
im still laughing at lauda's magic block
Inputs 9,124
Outputs 9,157
Transactions 8,885

how many times does lauda realistically thing we are going to see blocks with 97% of users not only using segwit. but also doing 1 in 1 out tx

[Lauda]

thats an expectation with/near 100% segwit usage
thats an expectation with/near LEAN tx..

the reality is not everyone will do lean TX's
the reality is not everyone will do segwit TX's

so your overselling expectation instead of thinking of rational realistic

Yes you keep talking comparing the theoretical limits of the current block size limit, to realistic 'expectations' of Segwit. A post such as this, is absurd at best:

(remember 2009-2013 the ~4500tx 7tx/s hype... guess what 1mb base segwit only offers ~4500tx(if 100% of users use segwit)) thus not really growth.

Either compare theoretical to theoretical, or realistic to realistic.

[European Central Bank]

You don't need Greg Maxwell's permission. This is Bitcoin. The code is open source.

this is a shitty thread but this is an angle that's often rolled out that doesn't quite ring true for me. that's like some fat mom in an arkansas backwater deciding she wants to run for president. you can certainly do so and no one's gonna stop you. no one's gonna pay you the slightest attention either.

[calkob]

****TROLLS INCOMING****


What is more worrying is the node count and the fact that many people with shitty internet in 2016 are running full nodes.

People should get a decent 5-10 mb internet, it would not cost more than 5-6$/month and setup proper full nodes.


Then we can talk about big blocks. But until you have 512kb/s mobile internet trolls lecturing us about node count problems we won't go ahead.

It's 2016 for fuck sake, get yourself a decent connection.

What effect does slow internet connections have on the network ?  i was always under the impression that speed didnt matter that much.  but yeah 512kb is pretty low, surely no one is using that these days......

[chennan]

Two years ago he threw a bitch fit...Now, Circle is taking their $138 million and leaving.

Yet, we're at the highest price point since then.  It's almost like Bitcoin doesn't care about Mike or Circle and is quite happy to see them chase profits elsewhere while we build the future of finance.

Is this really a good thing though?  I mean, price point isn't really an indicator of how good an asset is... rather I see price point as an indicator of how many "investors" there are speculating and trust in the asset as being valuable.  I feel that there has been the same amount of speculation going on, but just a slight increase in "trust" because of segwit... but if that goes south then, who knows what will happen.

Whether investors care about the fundamentals of block sizes or not, they will end up caring about it when the network gets so jammed that they can't send their coins to exchanges.

[Dafar]

The Circle CEO is a shill who said bitcoin will die in 5-10 years. If you believe him then please, go ahead and sell your coins and get the fuck out.


Mike Hearn claimed that bitcoin was going to continue crashing in price until it's obsolete. He urged everyone to sell their coins when it was in the $300s... LOL @ saying he was "right". He left like a bitch, and he ended up being remembered as a bitch.

[DGulari]

He left like a bitch, and he ended up being remembered as a bitch.

This may be true, however he was right that the network would come to a screeching halt, over the next few years.  Bitcoin price is just what speculators make it.  It does not indicate the functional progress/success of the system. 

The system is fucked because the MemPool is fucked, transaction times are fucked, fees are fucked.  So fucked that the companies with loads of money to spend developing cool shit are not spending that money developing bitcoin related stuff but moving away. 

Circle is moving their $138Million away from bitcoin development because Maxwell is a fucking dick.  This is a fact.  Say what you like about SegWit and LN, and 8MB blocks, but facts remain facts.  Companies with money are not going to build infrastructure that targets bitcoin because network congestion has totally crippled the system. 

This is past tense.  It already happened.  With 4MB blocks last year, bitcoin price would probably be at $3000 now.  Not only that, but loads of talent would be getting a check to build bitcoin related infrastructure (like wallets, etc).  All that work is NOT being done.  Armory is out of business.  Tresor is fucked.  AirBitz is abandoning their wallet.  The whole god-damned thing stopped - about the time Hearn left.  Maxwell and his love of proprietary off chain scaling has fucked this network.  Facts are facts.  No bullshit lines from Holliday are going to change that.

[Dafar]

Circle is moving their $138Million away from bitcoin development because Maxwell is a fucking dick.  This is a fact.  Say what you like about SegWit and LN, and 8MB blocks, but facts remain facts.

When was Circle ever going to put their $138M in bitcoin development? This is a complete twist of logic, they were not putting anything in bitcoin development.

With 4MB blocks last year, bitcoin price would probably be at $3000 now.  Not only that, but loads of talent would be getting a check to build bitcoin related infrastructure (like wallets, etc).  All that work is NOT being done.

This is complete bullshit. The price is not being held back because of the block size or delayed confirmation times. Bitcoin has been seeing a steady and healthy bull run for the last year and a half despite this debate. There was clowns last year who claimed bitcoin couldn't reach a price of $500 because the network couldn't support it. Absolutely bullshit. BTC price will appreciate because bitcoin currently has great value and use as gold 2.0 even if it's not ready for daily shopping transactions yet. To say that Core is the reason that "loads of talent" aren't working on bitcoin is also complete bullshit.

Armory is out of business.  Tresor is fucked.  AirBitz is abandoning their wallet.  The whole god-damned thing stopped - about the time Hearn left.  Maxwell and his love of proprietary off chain scaling has fucked this network.  Facts are facts.  No bullshit lines from Holliday are going to change that.

Like I said, sell your coins and move on. If you are so convinced of your 'facts' then do us all a favor and move on instead of spreading baseless FUD

[QuestionAuthority]

Why do you people keep threads like this alive? You all realize if no one posts here then this thread will just sink to the bottom like whale turds in the ocean.

@ Lauda, why have you not put Franky1 on ignore yet? You're continuous arguing with him is simply giving him a reason to post.

To mods: I consider this post to be on topic because OP's premise is rediculous and should be ignored, therefore, it speaks to the topic.

[European Central Bank]

This is complete bullshit. The price is not being held back because of the block size or delayed confirmation times.

i for one would put more money and faith into bitcoin if some real scaling was actually operating and not just being squabbled over. i'm sure many other people feel the same way. true, most of them won't be anywhere near an exchange but at a certain point traders will be affected by rising demand from other sources.

everyone wants it to scale but if everyone's pet solution cock blocks everyone else's then a huge amount of future potential is being thrown away. if nothing has been agreed on within a couple of years then i don't believe it ever will.

[Holliday]

Armory is out of business.

Armory never was "in business". They got a capital investment many years ago which they managed to spend before ever figuring out what their profit model was.

Yet, since Armory has gone "out of business", the repo has been forked by one of the former employees. Since that time drastic improvements have occurred and Armory is no longer falling behind on development. It doesn't replicate the entire block chain as it used to, and startup times have decreased drastically. The most recent version has separated the client from the database which opens a wide range of use cases that were previously unavailable. The upcoming version brings compatibility with SegWit, among other things. Oh, thanks to Armory going "out of business" the phone home code has been completely removed, which many users saw as an intrusion on their privacy. Apparently the FOSS version of Armory wasn't even going to be continued beyond 0.93.

Armory's development is now in the hands of a talented dev who obviously sees a bright future for Bitcoin, and thanks to him the project has advanced a long way in a short time.

Most startups fail. This is not unique to Bitcoin. Blocks had the 1MB limit long before any of these companies were created. If their business model required writing every transaction under the sun into the permanent ledger that every full node must keep a copy of forever, perhaps they should have reconsidered.

Trying to attribute poor business decisions of various Bitcoin startups to a previously existing 1MB anti-spam limit is disingenuous at best and the fact that you even try gives me some insight into how far you will go to push your agenda.

[xstayfrosty1980]

If the price doesn't care, I don't care. And why should anybody else? I have other things to worry about.

[RealBitcoin]

****TROLLS INCOMING****


What is more worrying is the node count and the fact that many people with shitty internet in 2016 are running full nodes.

People should get a decent 5-10 mb internet, it would not cost more than 5-6$/month and setup proper full nodes.


Then we can talk about big blocks. But until you have 512kb/s mobile internet trolls lecturing us about node count problems we won't go ahead.

It's 2016 for fuck sake, get yourself a decent connection.

What effect does slow internet connections have on the network ?  i was always under the impression that speed didnt matter that much.  but yeah 512kb is pretty low, surely no one is using that these days......

It's because if the blocksize increases ,these shitty nodes will shut down due to bandwidth problems.

Everyone blames Core, or the Developers, but the one you should really blame is your shitty ISP if you have slow connection.

We can't raise blocks until people have shitty internet connection.

[NeuroticFish]

Today you either pay the price to get processed fast, either wait the correct moment to send your transaction for smallest fees.
People that don't know this say a lot of useless crap just because they are angry, or they can, or it fits their business model.

SegWit is a step forward. Maybe not the best movement because it may not be accepted by the high percent required, but it's still a step forward.
If they think it well, 4MB, 8MB or whatever are not the best choices. The best choice is dynamic size. If or when this will get implemented, it's a matter for the future.

For now Bitcoin is FAR FROM DOING BAD and the market is well aware of this.
So no, Mike Hearn was not as right as OP would like....